Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction

6. Indicators and Standards of Quality A Normative Approach

137 6 Indicators and Standards of Quality A Normative Approach A Normative Approach Chapter 4 described the way in which indicators and standards of quality have emerged as a central focus of contemporary carrying capacity frameworks and of management of outdoor recreation more broadly. Indicators of quality are measurable, manageable variables that help define the quality of the recreation experience. Standards of quality define the minimum acceptable condition of indicator variables. Examples of indicators and standards of quality are offered in Chapter 4. Carrying capacity can be managed by monitoring indicators of quality and applying management practices to ensure that standards of quality are maintained. But how are indicators and standards of quality formulated? Research on crowding in outdoor recreation, described in Chapter 5, is suggestive of an important approach. Crowding can be understood as a normative process. That is, outdoor recreation visitors often have preferences, expectations, or other standardsbywhichtojudgeasituationascrowdedornot,andresearchdemonstrates that such standards may be as important as the number of other groups encountered in determining when a situation is judged as crowded or not. If such standards can be defined and measured, then they may be useful in formulating indicators and standards of quality. This chapter describes the application of normative theory and methods, as well as other approaches, to the formulation of indicators and standards of quality. Characteristics of good indicators and standards of quality are outlined, examples of indicators and standards of quality are compiled and presented, and a series of conclusions from this research are developed and discussed. Finally, a series of theoretical and methodological issues are identified regarding application of the normative approach to indicators and standards of quality in outdoor recreation. 138 STUDIES IN OUTDOOR RECREATION Norm Theory and Methods Developed in the disciplines of sociology and social psychology, normative theory and related empirical methods have attracted substantial attention as an organizing concept in outdoor recreation research and management (Heberlein 1977, B. Shelby and Heberlein 1986, Vaske et al. 1986b, Vaske et al. 1992, Vaske et al. 1993, B. Shelby et al. 1996, Manning 1999, Heywood et al. 2002, Manning 2007). Much of this literature has been organized around the work of J. Jackson (1965), which developed a methodology for measuring norms. Adapting these methods to outdoor recreation, visitors can be asked to evaluate levels of potential impacts caused by increasing recreation use; visitors might be asked to rate the acceptability of encountering increasing numbers of recreation groups while hiking along trails. Resulting data measure the personal crowding norm of each respondent and these data can be aggregated to test for social crowding norms, or the degree to which norms are shared across groups. Social norms can be illustrated graphically, as shown in Figure 6-1. Using hypothetical data associated with the example described above, this graph plots average (mean or median) acceptability ratings for encountering increasing numbers of visitor groups along trails. Data for this type of analysis might be derived from a survey of wildernesshikers.Thelineplottedinthisillustrationissometimescalledan“encounter” Figure 6-1. Hypothetical social norm curve INDICATORS AND STANDARDS OF QUALITY 139 or “contact preference” curve (when applied to crowding-related variables), or might be called an “impact acceptability” curve more generally, or simply a “norm curve.” Norm curves like that illustrated in Figure 6-1 have several potentially important features. First, all points along the curve above the neutral line of the evaluation scale—the point on the vertical axis where evaluation ratings fall from the acceptable into the unacceptable range —define the “range of acceptable conditions.” All of the conditions represented in this range meet some level of acceptability by about half of all respondents. The “optimum condition” is defined by the highest point on the norm curve—the condition that received the highest rating of acceptability from the sample as a whole. The “minimum acceptable condition” is the point at which the norm curve crosses the neutral point of the evaluation scale; this is the condition that approximately half of the sample finds acceptable. Norm “intensity,”—the strength of respondents’ feelings about the importance of a potential indicator of quality—is suggested by the distance of the norm curve above and below the neutral line of the evaluation scale. The greater this distance, the more strongly respondents feel about the indicator of quality or the condition being measured. High measures of norm intensity suggest that a variable may be a good indicator of quality. “Crystallization” of the norm...